Posted on 04/30/2003 5:45:41 AM PDT by CFW
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:09:42 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The laws are so numerous, so complex and so inconsistent that YOU surely commited some felony also, even if you were to be saint. But I doubt that you are saint.
As far as I know their only one right which can be denied on the ground of crime - it is right to be free from the servitute and slavery - according to the Thirteenth Amendment :
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Hehe. Do you want to bet? I am sure there are people in you state from FR you would love to find some dirt to win a lucrative bet.
Winner of the "duh" comment of the day award.
In case you hadn't noticed, every human has the ability to break the law. If you're advocating punishing those who show that ability, you might as well strap every infant down from birth and rescind the entire Bill of Rights. That is not the benchmark to use in determining who should and should not be punished, mainly because it does not do anything to differentiate. In point of fact, it merely classifies every human as criminal, and frees the state to mete put punishment at will. What's your definition of a police state? Your standard surely makes a rather powerful one, as police states go.
Please learn to read a history book before you go spouting nonsense. The LAW has violated the Constitution innumerable times.
Remember checks and balances? The courts have found many, many laws to be oppressive, unfair, unConstitutional, and just plain stupid.
I should have proofread better. I should have said that Felons have demonstrated thier intent, ability, and flagerant disregard of the law. We all have the ability to break the law, but most of us have the sense not to. Those who decide not to exercise good judgement are punished, and should be punished. In the case of a felony, the punishment is jail time, a criminal record and that they are prohibited from voting, and owning a firearm for life.
This particular loser decided that stealing things from people's homes (Felony Burglary) was a good thing for him to do, regardless how his victims may have suffered. He has demonstrated that he is a theif, and will intrude upon innocent people's property to take what is not his; not once, but at a minimum of twice (assuming he was caught 100% of the time). Now, we have people arguing that this person is being punished because he can't legally obtain a firearm, a right enjoyed by someone who actually obeys the laws. Yes, that's just what this country needs, legally armed criminals.
But, besides bashing my origional sentence, do you have any point to make? Or is sniping 'your thing'?
And how is taking guns away from legally convicted felons uncounstitutional? Historically speaking, who is more likely to shoot someone, a person with a history of armed assault, or a farmer? How about a person who's only crime is robbing a bank, you would actually defend his right to go out and buy another gun?
I suppose you would be offended if a drunk driver who has had 2+ DUI convictions loses his drivers license? If you demonstrate the ability to misuse your freedoms, the freedoms will be taken away. And that is hardly uncounstitiutional.
Volley right back atchya... no, you don't. ;^)
True, rights can be deprived after due process, but his punishment here exceeds all bounds of reason. This unfairness violates that due process. He would get about 6 years for another burglary, but he got 15 years for simply having a gun in his possession. (Note that he would get no punishment for committing the same act with a bow, an equally deadly weapon.) Mandatory sentencing guidelines give us unConstitutionally harsh, improper, contradictory, and unusual penalties.
Currently, the statutes in Indiana for Attempt has an improperly phrased mental element, and you can easily be prosecuted for a felony violation for mere misdemeanor acts. For example, if you get behind the wheel after having a few drinks and swerve around, you can be convicted of attempted reckless homocide, a felony (rather than the typical reckless driving misdemeanor), even if you drive two blocks on an empty road, then get out and call a cab.
Assume you're a gas station attendant. Sell gasoline to someone who goes on to rob a bank, and you're guilty of aiding him. You are now subject to the same penalties as he is if he mentioned the robbery and you failed to stop it. (Trying to stop it is not enough... you must succeed in Indiana.)
Assume you're getting a tow, and the driver asks to be paid in cash. If you do, you can be liable for his tax evasion, because you should have known that the request was meant to help him avoid paying business taxes. You're guilty of conspiracy, as well as the tax evasion.
Welcome to felony-land. Leave your rights at the door (especially to self-defense and to vote).
These loopholes and hidden mistakes exist in every state's Codes. They are not used often, if at all, but they exist and can be used to make you a felon at any time.
Locking this guy up on the public dime for 15 years isn't "throwing money at it"?
The punishment here is the unConstitutional part. 15 years mandatory sentencing for owning an inanimate object. There is nothing in his history that demonstrates that he is unsafe with guns, nothing to indicate that he assaults others or is violent in any way. He is being punished for something that you cowards fear he might do. Once you allow government to prosecute unpopular members of society in this way (it was blacks a few decades back, Jews and Chinese before that... are you proud of the company you keep?), you invite some real governmental abuse. How many times do you need to learn this lesson?
Historically speaking, who is more likely to shoot someone, a person with a history of armed assault, or a farmer?
Exactly proving my point. You are looking, eagerly, to punish someone you think is a lesser citizen than yourself. You support unequal treatment in the law, and you support punishing those based on crimes that you feel they are likely to commit. In short, you're an elitist who delights in using the power of the state to hurt others who have done nothing to warrant it. You're just as much of a thug as you think he is, but you use your "moral superiority" to use the power of the state, whereas all he ever hurt was a lock on a door (burglary is forcible entry to commit larceny inside... no violence necessary).
How about a person who's only crime is robbing a bank, you would actually defend his right to go out and buy another gun?
Yes. Say he was 18 when he made that mistake, is 74 now, and is being threatened by a gang of drug-dealing punks around the corner? His infirm wife is terrified and bed-ridden, and you can't move out of the subsidized housing you live in because there are no other homes available. You would mirthfully stand by and applaud his murder (after watching his wife get raped and bludgeoned, of course), all because he made a mistake, paid his debt to society, and you want to look down your nose at him. Truly, you're a prince among men.
Exactly what public purpose is served by prosecuting this man so harshly, other than putting the populace on notice that guns are evil, and the state will assume that if you own one, you are a threat. The purposes of confining someone are to deter others, deter the individual, incapacitate him (for public safety for the term of his incarceration), punish him, rehabilitate him, or to condemn the act. Plainly, he would have been deterred by far lesser sentences (hell, a $1000 fine would have done that), he does not need to be removed from society because he has never physically harmed another human being, his desire to own a gun can't be "rehabilitated"... that leaves punishing him (and again, 15 years easily violates the 8th Amendment since a third burglary or even a physical assault on another would carry far lesser sentences than he got for injuring no one!), or condemning him so that the public gets the message that if you have ever committed a crime, you're rights are rescinded forever, and that you no longer have the right to self-defense, even though you are no longer a threat to society (if you were, you'd still be in jail). So, please, tell us which purpose is being properly served by 15 years in a federal penitentiary for owning an inanimate object and never physically injuring another human being?
I suppose you would be offended if a drunk driver who has had 2+ DUI convictions loses his drivers license? If you demonstrate the ability to misuse your freedoms, the freedoms will be taken away. And that is hardly uncounstitiutional.
Duh. The Bill of Rights explicitly mentions ONE product... and it ain't modes of transportation. You can think this is a comparable argument?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.